UK to take Guantanamo inmates
By David Alexander Reuters - Saturday, December 8 06:39 amWASHINGTON (Reuters) - Three Guantanamo inmates who are British residents will be released under an agreement between Britain and the United States, their lawyer said on Friday.

(Advertisement)
Jamil El Banna of Jordan, Omar Deghayes of Libya and Abdenour Sameur of Algeria are expected to be returned to Britain shortly and are not expected remain in custody there, said Zachary Katznelson, a lawyer with the British organisation Reprieve that represents the three men.

He was not able to say when the release would happen.

"I can confirm to you that the British government has reached an agreement with the Americans that the men will be repatriated to England, where they are all legal permanent residents. They actually all got asylum from their home countries," he said.

Katznelson said Britain initiated the agreement.

Pentagon spokesman J.D. Gordon said he was unable to confirm the deal, but noted Washington has been trying to transfer some prisoners.

"We've been hard at work with the international community for quite some time to encourage other government to accept detainees held at Guantanamo in order to reduce the population there," Gordon said.

The United States has faced fierce criticism worldwide for the detention without charge -- often for years -- of suspected al Qaeda and Taliban members at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

"We're of course thrilled by the news that their ordeal in Guantanamo will hopefully soon be over," Katznelson said. "Guantanamo is a lawless place. No one should be held here without charge, without trial. And these men have received nothing here in the way of justice. Nothing at all."

Two other permanent British residents remain at Guantanamo, Katznelson said. He said there were reports one might be released to Saudi Arabia, but he was not able to confirm that.

About 305 inmates in President George W. Bush's war on terrorism are held at the prison, including about 70 whom U.S. military panels have cleared for release or transfer.

A judge at Guantanamo this week heard the first testimony in a U.S. military war crimes proceeding since the end of World War Two. The Guantanamo war crimes tribunals first convened in August 2004 but no witnesses were called in previous hearings.

Because their families are British Nationals? If my parent/spouse was a non-British national, it wouldn't seem unreasonable for my government to intervene on their behalf, for my sake.

Edited to add: similarly, if these men were originally granted refugee status, IMO that should be upheld unless there is evidence that they pose a risk to the UK or our interests (or unless that status was wrongfully granted). Being banged up in Gitmo doesn't in itself constitute evidence of anything other than being in the wrong place, at the wrong time, with the wrong skin colour.

Presumably they were detained in the Middle East/Afghanistan. If so why were they there having been granted asylum in UK? Ungrateful tw@ts. IMO they should be sent back to wherever they were picked up as it was obviously safe for them to be there.

If, as is likely, these men have been tortured by the Americans at Guantanamo, in breach of international Conventions going back to Nuremburg, I'm keen to see them awarded a massive great dollop of the legal aid fund to sue the arse off anyone their lawyers can get their hands on, in British, US or UN courts.

To bring their torturers to book is far more important than any pettifogging argument about residency status. Britain has a proud record of opposing torture and providing sanctuary to torture victims. It makes no difference whether it's some African tin pot dictatorship or the Yanks running torture cellars.

I'm surprised that some on this thread are so unpatriotic. Maybe a bit less of the old Daily Mail eh?

If, as is likely, these men have been tortured by the Americans at Guantanamo, in breach of international Conventions going back to Nuremburg, I'm keen to see them awarded a massive great dollop of the legal aid fund to sue the arse off anyone their lawyers can get their hands on, in British, US or UN courts.

To bring their torturers to book is far more important than any pettifogging argument about residency status. Britain has a proud record of opposing torture and providing sanctuary to torture victims. It makes no difference whether it's some African tin pot dictatorship or the Yanks running torture cellars.

I'm surprised that some on this thread are so unpatriotic. Maybe a bit less of the old Daily Mail eh?

Click to expand...

I'll be bollcocksed if I (as a tax payer) am going to fund them in their attempts to get a bit of Compo. Do you think that, for a moment even, uncle Sam is going to pay them a penny?

Besides, we're probably going to have to pay through the nose for them in housing and other benefits, so as far as I'm concerned they can poke it. They can double poke it if their not British Citizens.

I'm sorry, they were (probably) detained in the middle east, and probably not whilst visiting their uncles in Kuwait city, Riyadh, or any similar part of that region. I might be just guessing at this, but they were probably detained whilst up to no good or hanging about with those up to no good. If the US (and I don't agree with most of their policies) decided to detain all males of a certain age in the middle east for doing absolutely nothing, the whole of Cuba would be full by now.

If, as is likely, these men have been tortured by the Americans at Guantanamo, in breach of international Conventions going back to Nuremburg, I'm keen to see them awarded a massive great dollop of the legal aid fund to sue the arse off anyone their lawyers can get their hands on, in British, US or UN courts.

To bring their torturers to book is far more important than any pettifogging argument about residency status. Britain has a proud record of opposing torture and providing sanctuary to torture victims. It makes no difference whether it's some African tin pot dictatorship or the Yanks running torture cellars.

I'm surprised that some on this thread are so unpatriotic. Maybe a bit less of the old Daily Mail eh?

Click to expand...

I'll be bollcocksed if I (as a tax payer) am going to fund them in their attempts to get a bit of Compo. Do you think that, for a moment even, uncle Sam is going to pay them a penny?

Besides, we're probably going to have to pay through the nose for them in housing and other benefits, so as far as I'm concerned they can poke it. They can double poke it if their not British Citizens.

I'm sorry, they were (probably) detained in the middle east, and probably not whilst visiting their uncles in Kuwait city, Riyadh, or any similar part of that region. I might be just guessing at this, but they were probably detained whilst up to no good or hanging about with those up to no good. If the US (and I don't agree with most of their policies) decided to detain all males of a certain age in the middle east for doing absolutely nothing, the whole of Cuba would be full by now.

Click to expand...

I see you've side-stepped torture and patriotism. Fair enough. We just don't agree. I see it as quintessentially British to defend victims of torture. It's a long, proud tradition of these Islands going back a long time. It's terribly sad that the Yanks have gone down that road under Bush and, believe me, millions of decent Yanks are unhappy about it. To help these British residents kick up the biggest legal stink possible would help those decent Yanks bring America back into the fold of civilized nations. It's got nothing to do with compo money. Its to do with sticking it legally and politically to the torturers and their political masters.

Sorry mate, I read your views with interest but these guys aren't British Residents.

As far as I'm concerned they gave up that right as soon as they returned to the middle east, possibly to the same country they fled to the UK from (how ironic) in order to (probably) join up with whatever group they (probably) got involved in, and do you think they would spare us from torture if the boot was on the other foot? I think not. Next thing you'll be saying that Richard Reid (the shoe bomber, at least that's what I think his name was) should sue them as well.

There's no smoke without fire, just because there's not enough to get them into a court, it doesn't mean they're innocent.

Are you proposing that Britain champions the cause of all victims of torture by throwing cash at their legal teams in order to sue their alleged oppressors? If that's the case we all better start paying more tax seeing as we'll have to help millions across the world sue Saudi, Burma, China, Libya, Israel etc etc etc.

Presumably they were detained in the Middle East/Afghanistan. If so why were they there having been granted asylum in UK? Ungrateful tw@ts. IMO they should be sent back to wherever they were picked up as it was obviously safe for them to be there.

Click to expand...

...... Or not, as it turned out. If I was grabbed by the bollox and dragged off screaming to Guantanamo, I'd consider the country I was snatched from to be just a tad unsafe as a holiday destination tbh.

Having said that. If they've been through the mill at Guantanamo, they're probably among the most studied persons in history by the US, and if they haven't been able to find or fabricate enough evidence against these blokes to charge them, I'd be inclined to believe they are pretty much, if not innocent, then they must have been very low level threats, if at all.
Still, might be worth watching them now though, those years being spent undergoing feck-knows-what at the hands of the Septics while a guest at their pleasure, can instil an awful lot of resentment.

Sorry mate, I read your views with interest but these guys aren't British Residents.

As far as I'm concerned they gave up that right as soon as they returned to the middle east, possibly to the same country they fled to the UK from (how ironic) in order to (probably) join up with whatever group they (probably) got involved in, and do you think they would spare us from torture if the boot was on the other foot? I think not. Next thing you'll be saying that Richard Reid (the shoe bomber, at least that's what I think his name was) should sue them as well.

There's no smoke without fire, just because there's not enough to get them into a court, it doesn't mean they're innocent.

Are you proposing that Britain champions the cause of all victims of torture by throwing cash at their legal teams in order to sue their alleged oppressors? If that's the case we all better start paying more tax seeing as we'll have to help millions across the world sue Saudi, Burma, China, Libya, Israel etc etc etc.

Click to expand...

I take the line that with British values under attack from people like OBL (hatred of democracy, women, gays, seeking to impose region-based law on free peoples, etc etc) it's especially important to stand up for British values. It's like after a terrorist attack when people go out of their way to carry on as normal: you don't give the terrorists the satisfaction of seeing you jump to their tune.

For the Yanks to torture these people, and for Britain to fail to support them on their return (via the legal aid fund if necessary) is to climb into bed with Osama Bin Laden. It's to show that his campaign has been so successful we're now condoning dirty little torturers and sinking to their level.

As I say, I think (with respect) youre being unpatriotic, which is surprising for a services site.

Sorry mate, I read your views with interest but these guys aren't British Residents.

As far as I'm concerned they gave up that right as soon as they returned to the middle east, possibly to the same country they fled to the UK from (how ironic) in order to (probably) join up with whatever group they (probably) got involved in, and do you think they would spare us from torture if the boot was on the other foot? I think not. Next thing you'll be saying that Richard Reid (the shoe bomber, at least that's what I think his name was) should sue them as well.

There's no smoke without fire, just because there's not enough to get them into a court, it doesn't mean they're innocent.

Are you proposing that Britain champions the cause of all victims of torture by throwing cash at their legal teams in order to sue their alleged oppressors? If that's the case we all better start paying more tax seeing as we'll have to help millions across the world sue Saudi, Burma, China, Libya, Israel etc etc etc.

Click to expand...

I take the line that with British values under attack from people like OBL (hatred of democracy, women, gays, seeking to impose region-based law on free peoples, etc etc) it's especially important to stand up for British values. It's like after a terrorist attack when people go out of their way to carry on as normal: you don't give the terrorists the satisfaction of seeing you jump to their tune.

For the Yanks to torture these people, and for Britain to fail to support them on their return (via the legal aid fund if necessary) is to climb into bed with Osama Bin Laden. It's to show that his campaign has been so successful we're now condoning dirty little torturers and sinking to their level.

As I say, I think (with respect) youre being unpatriotic, which is surprising for a services site.

Click to expand...

I respect your opinion but, with respect, my perception is that you could be deemed unpatriotic by supporting those who (probably) are involved with the very same mindset that your claim to deplore (i.e OBL and what he stands for).

I do not condone the use of torture, but I do condone the right of British Citizens to be able to go about their daily lives free from the fear of people who hate our values, yet hide behind them, and wish to destroy them.

I don't think you and I could continue our, in all fairness, reasoned debate on this matter if we were living in the type of regime that OBL and his followers wish to put upon us.

I also think that neither of us are really in a position to comment on the why's, what's and do you mind if I dont's of these individuals without the facts (or intel) that led to them being detained.

For all we know they could be very dangerous men indeed, and as a man with a family i'm not willing to take that risk.